A thorny issue that has arisen in the context of determining whether someone meets this requirement is whether an employee had been “assigned” to an overseas affiliate of a Canadian business, and whether it was necessary for there to actually be an “assignment” from the Canadian business.

(3) For the purposes of subparagraphs 28(2)(a)(iii) and (iv) of the Act, the expression “employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the public service of Canada or of a province” means, in relation to a permanent resident, that the permanent resident is an employee of, or under contract to provide services to, a Canadian business or the public service of Canada or of a province, and is assigned on a full-time basis as a term of the employment or contract to

(a) a position outside Canada;

(b) an affiliated enterprise outside Canada; or

(c) a client of the Canadian business or the public service outside Canada.

The Federal Court ultimately disagreed with the Immigration Appeal Division, and ruled that the word “assigned” in subsection 61(3) means that an individual occupying a position outside Canada on a temporary basis. It also requires that the individual be likely to return to Canada once the assignment is completed.

The issue of what constitutes employment on a full time basis abroad is one that is frequently litigated before the Immigration Appeal Division, and this case goes a long way towards resolving uncertainties in the law regarding the issue.

DISCLAIMER

Please note that none of the information on this website should be construed as being legal advice. As well, you should not rely on any of the information contained in this website when determining whether and how to apply to a given program. Canadian immigration law is constantly changing, and the information above may be dated. If you have a question about the contents of this blog, or any question about Canadian immigration law, please contact the Author.